Indian capitalism: Supreme Court directs Tata Company to return agricultural land to people

On September 02, a two judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a much awaited judgment on the Singur land acquisition case. Calling the then Left led state government’s acquisition of 900 acres of land for Tata’s Nano plant a “colorable exercise of power and a fraud on the people”, the judges have ordered that all the land be returned to the owners within 12 weeks.

Here is a comprehensive timeline of events beginning from Ratan Tata’s announcement of the small car project in May 2006 followed by protests and resistance by farmers who alleged forcible acquisition in December of the same year when Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee went on an indefinite hunger strike in support of their struggle.

It has been a decade since images of the violence in Singur, and later Nandigram, haunted us but for many of those affected, most of them small farmers and agricultural workers, the verdict is a victory.

The judgment has been scathing in its vindication of the CPM led Left government pointing to lapses in several procedures that ought to have been undertaken as per the Land Acquisition Act.

Judgment

This report in quotes the relevant part of the judgment – State government is required to apply mind to the report of the collector and take the final decision on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. Then and then only, a declaration can be made under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act).

In this case there seems to be no application of mind either at the stage of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, or the report of collector under Section 5-A (2) of the L.A. Act or the issuance of the final notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act. While Section 4 of the Act required a notice to be published in the gazette that land is to be acquired, Section 5-A (2) allows those interested in the land to give objections in writing to the collector and requires the government to take note of the same.

Quoting from the petitions of the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights and others who opposed the land acquisition, this report in the First Post says elaborates on the contentions of the farmers and those who lost their lands – Acquisition of the Singur land for public purpose and then handing it over to Tata Motors for its Nano project was illegal and in breach of land acquisition law. The association had told the court that there was a separate procedure under the land acquisition law for acquiring land for a project of a private company, and that the land acquired by the government for public purposes could be given to a private company only for constructing dwelling units of the workers employed with it and no other purpose.

However, this report by Krishnadas Rajagopal points out that the two judges differed on whether the land acquired could qualify as public purpose. While Justice Gowda felt that the acquisition “For and at the instance of the company was sought to be disguised as acquisition of land for ‘public purpose’ in order to circumvent compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act’, Justice Mishra differed.

Small car industry would have “ultimately benefited” the people and the very purpose of industrialization. The factory would have opened up job opportunities in the State and attracted investment. Regarding procedural issues too, the bench was divided. While Justice Gowda said that individual notices ought to have been issued, Justice Mishra felt that a common gazette notification sufficed.

Despite these differences, the judgment has sent out a strong message about (communist scheme) development at the cost of the poor – In this day and age of fast paced development, it is completely understandable for the state government to want to acquire lands to set up industrial units.

What, however, cannot be lost sight of is the fact that when the brunt of this ‘development’ is borne by the weakest sections of the society, more so, poor agricultural laborers who have no means of raising a voice against the action of the mighty state government.

Rise of Mamata Banerjee

For too long the Congress party that had lost power to communists decades ago tried to wrestle it back but failed. Now a former Congress leader and central minister Mamata Banerjee with her own Congress faction called Trinamool Party has come p to power replacing a formidable Left dispensation as Bengalese rejected Communist opportunism and betrayal. In a way, the foolish communist leaders in the state promoted him imminent arrival of Mamata Banerjee as a historic phenomenon. .

Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee’s ascent to power in the state, after ousting the Left, had much to do with the struggle in Singur. Banerjee relentlessly protested the “communist” acquisition of the land while firmly asserting that her party was not anti-industry and the 400 acres of land belonging to the ‘unwilling farmers’ should be returned to them. Her “Save Farmland” movement was supported by various environmental activists and intellectuals.

The ruling Trinamool Congress is celebrating and understandably so, because the court has also ruled that the farmers who have received compensation need not return it as they have been deprived of their livelihood for the last decade. In fact, soon after the TMC came to power, Singur Land and Rehabilitation Bill was enacted.

A case testing the constitutional validity of this law, while still pending before the Supreme Court is likely to become “fructuous” given the present judgment. The Tatas, who shifted shop to Gujarat in 2008, cited this reason to remain mute on the subject.

Deception and lose of brains

There is a possibility that Tata Motors could sue the state government for breach of contract. The company issued a statement to that effect. “Political parties may change but the government is a continuity. The company willingly gambled and took lease of the illegal land in good faith. But it now is clear that they were given a bad land title. The company may seek compensation on that ground that the company had valued its loss at Rs.1400 crores (their petition to the Calcutta High Court in 2011).

India Inc however has been more cautious in their reactions. The Singur verdict will not impact the potential of the State in attracting investment. This is, of course, the official statement. Privately, a prominent industrialist pointed out that the Tata Nano episode already served a major blow to the investment potential and there is nothing more to lose.

The relocation took place at a time when Bengal was in the spotlight of investors in India and abroad, seeking investments in the state with lucrative promises to willing investors. . . It also pressed the pause button on Bengal’s dream to emerge as an auto hub. The same article also asserts that the biggest loser, politically, is the CPM. CPI (M)’s vote and seat share is declining at an alarming rate since the 2009 general election.

Efforts to revive the industrialization agenda in the 2016 Assembly election failed miserably. What’s more, post-election they are losing elected representatives to Trinamool.

The CPI(M)’s reaction to the verdict is simple as it is not opposed to the decision of returning land to farmers but had contested her (Mamata’s) 2011 move on some technical loopholes. “Today’s verdict has not answered questions on the legality of the Singur legislation her government had brought, which is what we were opposed to.”

The BJP which lost its chances once for all in the state with Mamata’s arrival, was quick to point out the Left’s double speak. Siddharth Nath Singh, BJP leader in the state, has been quoted saying – The Left opposed our central government’s land acquisition Bill. It said land should be acquired only for public purpose, but in Singur its government had acquired it for a private purpose to promote Tata Company. So, the Left must explain”.

JD United leader Shyam Rajak said that the judgment sends a strong message to the Centre which has been enacting anti people policies. “We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court. This was a fight for the rights of the poor. This decision will ensure that the farmers retain their livelihood. I hope the verdict will send out a positive signal. There are lots of cases – be it Narmada Andolan, or be it about Tehri dam issue which has been fighting for the cause of the poor. The SC should also review these cases as well”.

Not only the left parties but also the Congress and BJP that get plenty of lose findings form corporate lords are worried that their multinational corporate beneficiaries are not happy.

Honoring concerns of common folk

Ever since independence in 1947, Indian rulers, Congress, BJP, others have been relentlessly pampering corporate lords and rich classes to get bribes from them. This has badly affected the fortunes of common people, Muslims suffering the worst. .

Left government West Bengal just took people for granted and launched grand capitalist agenda by looting the agricultural lands for the purposes of increasing surplus values of corporate lords against basics communist pimples. That cost very dearly for the communist parties in the state as they lost the general polls, both parliament and state assembly- to a new Trinamool party of dynamic Mamata Banerjee.

People of India, through the people of Singur have won a great battle against illegal transaction over farmers’ lands and subsequent forceful occupation and exposed communist movement in the country as a false and pretentious one to exploit the weak sections of the nation in their favor.

Supreme Court order, a huge though belated victory and vindication for the courageous peasants of Singur against corporate land grab, should serve as final warning to leftist parties in India to pursue only people’s concerns and not to help promote capitalist agenda primarily because left parties are supposed to be anti-capitalism and fight for the common people and their genuine requirements. They should if required read Marx who wrote in volumes about surplus values.

Nano judgment against government’s immoral dead with capitalists is yet another feather in the Apex Court’s jurisprudence and will go a long in strengthening the power of common people in Indian political arrangement.

Russians Need to Strategise Trade with Africa

Russian business lobbying groups, together with about 40 business and industry heads, have shown interest in exporting their products to markets in Africa but found it difficult to access facilitation procedures in some of the countries.

To understand some of the processes and procedures, Nonna Kagramanya, the Vice President of Delovaya Rossia (Business Russia), moderated a special seminar to constructively discuss emerging issues and possible solutions on various foreign economic tracks. Representatives of governments, development institutions, private businesses as well as Southern and Eastern African diplomats attended the event.

She said despite the relatively small trade turnover with African countries, Russian companies were very interested in establishing stable long-term contacts with African partners.

As a first step, Ms. Kagramanya proposed the creation of a permanent discussion-line for all interested participants of the seminar to discuss a set of priority problems and barriers when working with Africa.

“Today, Russia wants to deepen its understanding of the business climate and explore trade and partnership opportunities in Africa,” she underscored.

While meetings organised between Russia and Africa have to be used to discuss thoroughly how to trade, efforts should be made to remove or lessen some of the barriers for mutual benefits. Now Russia’s main goal is to decide what it can offer that foreign players haven’t yet been made available in the African market.

Contributing to the discussion, the General Director of Intelnexus, Anatoly Yakimenko, introduced the participants to the opportunities for the development of Russian-African business cooperation, noting the favourable and hindering factors in the African market.

He stressed the need for potential exporters of Russia to adopt high-tech production and solutions to expand initiatives for more effective positioning of high-tech companies in Africa.

The Deputy Director of the Department of Asia, Africa and Latin America of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, Alexander Dianov, spoke about the non-financial support measures for Russian companies operating within the department.

“Currently, there are 10 intergovernmental commissions between the Russian Federation and African countries,” he said.

At the same time, he said: “There are trade missions only in four African countries, and if you take sub-Saharan African countries, the trade mission operates effectively only in South Africa. It is obvious that there is something to work on in terms of developing the infrastructure to support Russian businesses. If there is a serious request from the business community, we are ready to expand the geography of our presence.”

A representative of the Russian Export Centre (REC) in Africa, Dmitry Suchkov, drew the attention of companies to the need for in-depth analysis of national programmes of economic and investment development of African countries.

He spoke about the initiatives of the Coordinating Committee for Economic Cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa.

Natalia Zaiser, the Chairperson of the Board of the African Business Initiative, pointed to the problems of ensuring security and stable “rules of the game,” as well as the need to identify five priority areas of business cooperation on the medium and long term perspectives for individual countries.

Representatives of the embassies of Rwanda, Tanzania and South Africa spoke about the integration processes on the African Continent, the potential of regional markets and national development initiatives.

Members of diplomatic missions also noted the greatly unrealised potential of cooperation between Russia and African countries, and interest in attracting investments in infrastructure, education and many other sectors.

They called for a wider interaction between African business circles and Russian businesses.

During the discussion, the participants mentioned high import duties, complicated certification procedure, high cost of products, expensive logistics, security and guarantee issues, and information vacuum as some of the barriers to Russian-African trade and economic cooperation. However, the participants agreed on the need to develop a comprehensive strategy for Russia to work with Africa.

Related

Curating a Vision with Young African Entrepreneurs

How can young people be involved in creating a future of work that is decent, equitable and bright? This November I was fortunate enough to take part in an event with this mandate at its heart.

The Youth Entrepreneurship and Self-Employment Forum (YES Forum) in Dakar, Senegal was co-organised by the ILO and our partners in the Global Initiative on Decent Jobs for Youth. It was a collaborative effort supporting young entrepreneurs in the region, and it was a joy to see this vision becoming real during the two-day event – with young entrepreneurs shining at different stages of the YES Forum.

More than 30 young entrepreneurs took on active speaking roles across the discussion sessions, a “Dragon’s Den” style pitching competition, and the Marketplace. This Marketplace offered participants the opportunity to float in between booths and to have one-on-one interactions with the presenting entrepreneurs and organisations.

The vibrant tone was set at the very start, with all participants given hand-made, customised notebooks, the product of an all-female team led by entrepreneur Ndey Fatou Njie for her business TIGA Gambia. TIGA Gambia is now an all-around fashion and accessories retailer, but originally zoomed in on providing locally-inspired swimwear – a large market gap that Ndey spotted and filled!

Not only were the TIGA Gambia notebooks a showstopper, they were also a colourful and popular extension of the empowering message of the YES Forum.

The innovative and vibrant spirit of entrepreneurs in their element was palpable all through the Forum, but shone particularly during the networking lunch and the Marketplace. It was difficult to lure the participants back into the plenary after these events, because they were so busy talking, forging synergies and building contacts.

While the young entrepreneurs embraced their speaking opportunities to the fullest, they also created a wonderfully inclusive setting that allowed everyone’s successes to be seen and recognised. I was particularly touched when the pitching competition winner, Malick Diouf, CEO of LAfricaMobile, immediately called his three competitors onto the stage to congratulate them on their incredible work.

Malick was humble about his win but his company deserves a special shout-out. LAfricaMobile serves as a digital bridge between African media publishers and organizations wanting to disseminate their content to the African diaspora. As a comms aficionado I was particularly impressed by how effortless their SMS service is in helping the African diaspora connect to what is going on in their home countries.

All in all, the YES Forum left a lasting impression on me for two reasons: Firstly because of the level of mutual support and cooperation that the young entrepreneurs showed, and secondly because the Forum truly catered for these young entrepreneurs and allowed them to share their stories and to explore collaboration. I believe it will leave a lasting result – of stronger alliances and greater empowerment.

Mariama Johm, founder of Afri Taste, a Banjul health joint that combats fruit and vegetable waste, summed up the atmosphere in her remarks during the Young Global Entrepreneurs panel: “I am glad we have the youth actually speaking here. We, young entrepreneurs, want to speak and let policymakers hear from us – not only here, but we want to make governments take into consideration what we are saying and that they should not make decisions on our behalf.”

Related

Easing US-China trade tensions could save millions of jobs

Millions of jobs in the Asia and Pacific region have
been put at risk by conflicts over trade, despite a recent agreement not to
escalate tit-for-tat tariffs by the United States and China, according to a new
regional UN report.

The 2018 Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment
Report, issued by the UN’s
development arm in the region, ESCAP, suggests that an escalating “tariff war” and resulting drop in
confidence next year, could cut nearly $400 billion from the global gross
domestic product, drive regional GDP down by $117 billion.

“As production shifts take place and resources are
reallocated across sectors and borders due to the trade conflicts, tens of
millions of workers may see their jobs displaced and be forced to seek new
employment,” said Mia Mikic, the head of Trade, Investment and Innovation
Division at ESCAP.

That said, the report also noted trade tensions have
already had had a major impact, resulting in disruptions to existing supply
chains and dampening investment. Trade growth slowed after the first half of
2018, and foreign direct investment (FDI) flows to the region are also expected
to continue on a downward trend next year, following a 4 per cent drop overall
this year.

In such a scenario, regional investment will be key to
creating new economic opportunities, says Ms. Mikic, adding that “complementary
policies” such as labour, education and retraining, and social protection
measures must be placed high on the policymaking agenda.

ESCAP has also called on countries to take full
advantage of all existing initiatives to strengthen regional cooperation,
including a new UN treaty on digitalizing trade procedures and enabling
cross-border paperless trade in the zone.

‘Trade war’ has no winners

The report has also underscored that neither China nor
the US can win a “trade war”, explaining that “both will see significant
economic losses from continuing conflict.”

It also finds that implementation of mega-regional
trade agreements such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, among
the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its six partners –
Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea – could
offset much of the economic losses from trade tensions.

The 2018 report estimates that implementation of such
agreements could boost exports by 1.3 to 2.9 per cent and add 3.5 to 12.5
million jobs in the Asia-Pacific.

ESCAP, or the Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific is largest among
UN regional commissions. Its 53 member States and 9 associate members span a
geographic area from the Pacific island of Tuvalu in the east to Turkey in the
west, and Russia in the north to New Zealand in the south. The region is home
to nearly two-thirds of the world’s population.

In addition to countries in the Asia-Pacific region,
ESCAP’s membership also includes France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom
and the US.